BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is calling upon the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to open a criminal investigation into what may be a publicly-admitted straw purchase of a handgun in New Hampshire involving the head of a Massachusetts anti-gun organization and a columnist for the Boston Globe.

SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb said today that remarks made by John Rosenthal, head of Stop Handgun Violence and a co-founder of the anti-gun American Hunting and Shooting Association, and Globe columnist Steve Bailey during a segment on WRKO AM on July 10 “strongly suggest they were involved in an illegal gun purchase.”

“Bailey and Rosenthal traveled from Massachusetts to New Hampshire where Rosenthal reportedly asked a dealer at a gun show whether he could buy a handgun,” Gottlieb said. “When the dealer learned Rosenthal was a Massachusetts resident, he declined to sell him a gun. At that point, Rosenthal allegedly asked if a companion, who was a New Hampshire resident, could buy the gun and the dealer agreed. Rosenthal, in an interview with Gun Week, claimed that the dealer clearly knew this was a straw sale.

“The irony here,” he observed, “is that Rosenthal has tried to portray this dealer as having conducted a straw sale, but what he is also describing is a straw purchase. There are two sides to any such crime, and the buyer – and the person who initiated that purchase – would be just as criminally liable as the seller of the gun.

“We think federal authorities should find out where that gun is now, who ultimately paid for it, and whether Rosenthal, Bailey and the New Hampshire resident participated in a conspiracy to conduct this transaction,” Gottlieb noted.

“Private citizens, whether they run anti-gun organizations, write for newspapers or happen to be the anti-gun mayor of New York City, cannot conduct straw purchases or hire someone else to do it and then claim it was in the public interest,” Gottlieb concluded. “We believe a crime, or multiple crimes, may have been committed here, and we encourage the BATF to investigate. If it turns out Rosenthal, Bailey and their companion did break the law, we expect them to be prosecuted.”

July 15, 2007

A backdoor attempt to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms -- including ammunition for those guns.

Mark Alexander, Patriot Post: The latest rounds fired in the Left’s assault on our Second Amendment rights include a back-door ploy by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to dry up ammo sales, and another newspaper’s decision to publish non-public records of concealed-carry permit holders.

A recently proposed rule from OSHA seeks to have ammunition, primers or black and smokeless powder indiscriminately treated as “explosives.” The regulations would prohibit firearms in commercial “facilities containing explosives” (gun stores, for example), require that all such facilities be evacuated in the event of an electrical storm (even Wal-Mart) and prohibit smoking within 50 feet of the facilities. This issue has gun-rights advocates up in arms, decrying the incredible absurdity of the proposed regulations. The NRA says, “[I]t’s important to remember this is only a proposed rule right now, so there’s still time for concerned citizens to speak out."

July 11, 2007

SAF FOUNDER TO BRADY PRESIDENT: ‘YOU WERE WRONG, HERE’S PROOF’

The founder of the Second Amendment Foundation today said he will supply Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke with documentation on the “text book case” from Missouri that helped convince that state’s legislature to pass a “Stand-Your-Ground” law to protect citizens from criminal or civil prosecution when they shoot in self-defense.

In a series of debates with SAF founder Alan Gottlieb last week, Helmke told MSNBC viewers that he has been unable to identify anybody who has ever been sued and suffered financially for shooting in self-defense.

“Helmke is sadly uninformed, and we’re going to educate him,” Gottlieb said. “The case of a Carroll County man who was charged in December 1992 for shooting a burglar and subsequently acquitted, but then was sued almost immediately in civil court for $250,000 by the burglar’s family, is exactly the kind of outrage this law, and similar statutes in other states, is designed to prevent." The civil case was originally filed in February 1993 in Carroll County (CV193-15CC) but transferred to Livingston County and renumbered (CV793-139CC).

“Ultimately,” Gottlieb continued, “this case shows just how much a person can suffer, emotionally and financially. The homeowner first had to endure the costs and emotional stress of successfully defending himself in criminal court. Then the plaintiffs in the civil suit finally settled with the homeowner’s insurance company for $20,000, a decision in which he had no say. That company turned around and cancelled the man’s policy.

“For Paul Helmke, or anyone else, to claim that such statutes are unnecessary is proof that the anti-self-defense crowd is on the side of the criminals,” he stated. “They fought sensible concealed carry statutes in 40 states, and couldn’t stop stand-your-ground laws in 19 states. Their agenda is to defend laws in the remaining states that victimize law-abiding citizens who defend themselves. First these citizens are victimized by the criminal, then by the criminal justice system and finally in the civil courts.

“Claiming that such cases are urban myth, as Helmke did in our debate, smacks of head-in-the-sand arrogance,” Gottlieb said. “Paul Helmke is either woefully uninformed or deliberately ignorant of the facts, and the Second Amendment Foundation is going to correct that.”

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Citing careful review of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's statements and actions, listening to the concerns of many of his constituents and receiving communications from and speaking with officials at the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the firearm industry's trade association -- Oldmans Township (NJ) Mayor Harry Moore resigned his membership in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition (MAIG) Saturday afternoon.

"I joined your coalition because of its purported purpose to combat the criminal acquisition and misuse of guns, which is a goal shared by all Americans," wrote Moore in his resignation letter to Mr. Bloomberg. "Regrettably, it has become abundantly clear to me that you are using this coalition of mayors to advance a hidden agenda of bringing lawsuits against members of the firearms industry and spreading anti-gun propaganda." -- nssf.org

There is no "gun-show loophole".

Philip Van Cleave, VCDL: There is no loopholeCritics use gun shows to scare you into accepting more limits.

By Philip Van Cleave

Let's be clear about gun shows: There is nothing that can be done at a gun show that cannot be done legally outside of a gun show.

The terms "gun show loophole" and "unlicensed gun dealer" are fabricated to mislead the public into thinking that gun shows permit gun sales that would be forbidden anywhere else. The intent of this scheme is to villainize gun shows, making the public more receptive to additional restrictions.

This is just the first step in a "private gun-sale registration" scheme.

Gun banners know they must take small steps, placing more and more hurdles to gun ownership so that fewer law abiding citizens will go to the trouble of purchasing a firearm.

None of the hurdles would affect criminals. According to a 2001 U.S. Department of Justice report, only 0.7% of criminals got their guns from shows.

A gun purchased from a dealer at a gun show requires the same background check as a gun purchased at the dealer's store. No loophole.

In most states, a gun purchased from a person's private collection requires no background check, whether purchased at a gun show or at someone's home. Again, no loophole.

A gun is like any other private property: It's yours to sell whenever you wish.

Of course, gun banners would call you an "unlicensed gun dealer."

Hogwash. Does selling your personal car make you an "unlicensed car dealer?"

Gun banners want to force dealers to do background checks on private sales. That would put a heavy burden on dealers who must keep the paperwork for decades and delay their own sales while running those checks. That would drive up the cost of buying a gun, creating another hurdle for the prospective law abiding purchaser.

Of course, closing the imaginary "gun show loophole" is only the first step. Gun banners will then say that since private sales are not allowed at gun shows, the "home gun-sale loophole" must be closed.

Ultimately, complete gun registration is the goal. Where there is registration, there is confiscation, as gun owners in California, Illinois, New York and Washington, D.C., learned when authorities confiscated guns that were banned after the owner had bought and registered them.

Philip Van Cleave is president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (www.vcdl.org), a gun rights group

July 9, 2007

CCRKBA TELLS GUN OWNERS TO CIRCLE AUG. 28 FOR COUNTER PROTEST EFFORT

BELLEVUE, WA – While Rev. Jesse Jackson is feverishly organizing a 25-city anti-gun protest on Tuesday, Aug. 28, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) wants gun owners to visit gun shops and shooting ranges, and contact their state and federal lawmakers on that date to demand that they support our Second Amendment rights.

Jackson’s day of national protest is timed on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s 1963 March on Washington, D.C.

“The great hypocrisy here,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb, “is that Dr. King’s historic march was to promote and defend civil rights. What Jesse Jackson is planning is designed to crush America’s most important civil right. A right that Dr. King exercised by owning a handgun.”

Jackson wants to limit the number of firearms a person may purchase in a calendar year, place new restrictions on who is allowed to legally own a handgun, and mandate longer waiting periods.

“While Jackson and his gun-grabbing cronies want to make it more difficult, if not impossible, for average Americans to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb said, “gun owners can exercise their Constitutional rights, and tell their lawmakers to defend the Second Amendment. They can visit a gun shop, buy a gun or ammunition, or visit a range and exercise their rights.

“Being from Chicago,” Gottlieb said, “it is astonishing that Jackson has failed to see the correlation between that city’s Draconian handgun ban and Chicago’s violent crime rate, yet he wants to lead a nationwide protest against a constitutionally-protected civil right. Rev. Jackson evidently has forgotten the question raised in Luke, Chapter 6: ‘Can the blind lead the blind’?”

“Holding law-abiding gun owners responsible for crimes they did not commit, which is what restrictive gun laws do, is like bearing false witness against thy neighbor,” Gottlieb said. “I might suggest that anybody joining in this protest remember the words of Matthew, who said ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

July 5, 2007

Quotes

Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. —Andrew Fletcher

Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen. —Jeff Cooper

July 3, 2007

Must be great to be a gun-free Deputy Mayor in a gun-free city!

Deputy Mayor Robbed at Gunpoint

By Allison Klein and David NakamuraWashington Post Staff WritersWednesday, June 27, 2007; B03

The man in charge of fixing the District's ailing schools might be more focused this week on another troubled aspect of the city -- public safety -- after he was robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight while walking home from the Metro.

Victor Reinoso, the deputy mayor for education, was walking in the 6800 block of Fifth Street NW at 7:25 p.m. Monday when he was held up by two men, police said.

One man, wearing a pink shirt, pointed a black and silver handgun at Reinoso and demanded that he drop his briefcase, police said. The second assailant picked up the briefcase and ordered, "Give me your cellphone," which Reinoso did, according to a police report. The men then told Reinoso to hand over his wallet, and he complied.

Reinoso, 38, was not hurt. "He was pretty lucky," police Cmdr. Hilton Burton said, noting robberies can end in violence.

June 24, 2007

Gun-running anti-gunner.

Mark Steyn: If you live in one of those jurisdictions like New York City or Washington, DC where your Second Amendment rights are dramatically constrained, here's a useful tip. If you're looking for a good place to buy cheap firearms, try the local gun control group:

The founder of an antiviolence group called No Guns pleaded not guilty Thursday to federal weapons charges.

Hector "Big Weasel" Marroquin is accused of selling an assault rifle, a machine gun, two pistols and two silencers to undercover federal agents last fall.

I love America! Even the anti-gun groups are full of gun nuts packing totally awesome heat.

June 14, 2007

Your choice.

June 5, 2007

For crooks: guns aplenty. For you and me: paperwork

George Jonas

National Post

My friend, noted Quebec academic and author Pierre Lemieux, submitted his firearms licence-renewal application directly to the Prime Minister's office this week. "Mr. Prime Minister," he wrote in a covering letter enclosing his Form 979, "I would like to suggest that you should enforce your own "laws" yourself. You will note that, as a proud descendant of the disobedient French Canadian coureurs de bois, I have not answered one of the form's indiscreet and obscene questions. I answered that my love affairs are none of your business." (Form 979 asks, among other things, about recently ended romantic relationships.)

Atta boy, Pierre. It may not do much good, but cowering like mice before "the insolence of office," as Shakespeare called it, won't do much good either.

Whenever Toronto the Good turns into a shooting gallery, which has been most years, the blood spilled in the streets becomes a transfusion for the tired veins of gun control advocates. It also reinvigorates the ageing vampires of anti-Americanism, with a few drops left over to feed the scavengers who search for the "root causes" of crime.

Blaming everyone but the culprits -- violent youth gangs waging turf wars -- the promoters of failed social policies are demanding more of the same. They want more regulations for the law-abiding, more molly-coddling for the lawless and more America-bashing for everyone.

The racket Toronto's Mayor made two-three years ago about "cheap American guns" in Hogtown's streets was especially ironic. Crime spooks everyone, including Yanks. For quite some time now, Americans have been experimenting with solutions in the area of gun control that are only too Canadian.

When the U.S. Congress passed the Brady Bill in 1993, Canadians were puzzled by the emotional debate. Why fuss about a five-day waiting period before a person is able to purchase a handgun? Though many Canadians owned handguns, they took it for granted that gun ownership was less than a right, and it entailed jumping through elaborate bureaucratic hurdles.

America's congressional representatives had a different view until 1993. U.S. citizens, whether they owned a gun or not, believed that they had a right -- indeed, a constitutional right -- to bear arms. They understood this to mean that they could go into a store to buy a gun at will, without being hampered by regulations.

What changed the minds of U.S. citizens in sufficient numbers to allow passage of the Brady Bill 14 years ago? In a word, crime.

The bill passed primarily because, ever since the turbulent 1960s,many more-or-less peaceful American cities had become battle zones. By 1993, it was an everyday event for shoppers, passers-by, even children, to be gunned down in neighbourhood streets, schoolyards and parks.

Americans believed in their right to bear arms, but didn't condone gunplay in the streets. On the contrary, chances were the more a person endorsed a citizen's right to own a gun for lawful purposes, the more he or she condemned crime and the criminal use of firearms.

The gun lobby's argument, in the catchy phrase of the National Rifle Association, has always been that guns don't kill, criminals do. However, things aren't so simple. It's true that guns don't kill, criminals do, but it's also true that guns make criminals more efficient killers. Keeping guns away from criminals would undoubtedly reduce the worst effects of violent crime.

The problem is that gun control in any form practical in a free society -- certainly in any form currently proposed or practised in Canada or the U.S., such as demanding details about Professor Lemieux's love life -- doesn't keep guns away from criminals. It only keeps guns away from law-abiding citizens. Interfering with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and carry arms does nothing to reduce violence in the street.

Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens pose little danger to public safety. (Less danger, to be statistically precise, than unattended swimming pools.) In fact, from the point of view of public safety, the worst combination is armed criminals confronting unarmed citizens.

Yet this is all our current gun control laws can possibly achieve: Armed criminals confronting unarmed citizens. The 1993 Brady Bill was no exception. It could do nothing but add some annoyance and red tape to the life of a law-abiding person who wished to purchase a gun.

Brady did not stop a person with a criminal record. Such a person could buy an illegal handgun around the corner, which he probably preferred to do anyway. Criminals don't like committing crimes with guns registered to them.

Neither does a five-day wait deter the deranged or the enraged. The mad sniper simply waits; he has all the time. As for the impulsive or domestic criminal, he seldom goes shopping for weapons. He uses whatever is handy, whether a meat cleaver or a 12-gauge shotgun.

Is there a kind of gun law that could reduce violent crime? Yes, a complete ban on the possession of all firearms, coupled with draconian penalties. Such laws existed in most totalitarian countries, and they worked. There was almost no gunplay in the streets. In those societies, no one had to worry about his safety -- until he saw a policeman.

May 31, 2007

Now we know.

Anyone in Washington who proposes merging the United States out of existence will be responsible for instigating a new Civil War. Now we know the reason Washington keeps passing all those anti-gun laws. -- Norman Liebmann

As the shock from the massacre at Virginia Tech wears off, it appears the political fallout will be minimal. While there were a few calls for more gun control in the wake of the tragedy, they have gained no steam in Congress. Perhaps members of Congress are wary of the voting habits of gun owners. Or perhaps the public, in general, no longer views gun control as the proper response to the latest psycho who opens fire.

Whatever the reason, it may be time to consider gun policies that move us in the opposite direction: arming ourselves.

We all wish that the government could protect us from the likes of Seung-Hui Cho. Unfortunately, government systems are usually inefficient at best, counter-productive at worst. Cho was briefly committed to psychiatric care by the courts but was ultimately treated on an outpatient basis. Since he was not involuntarily being treated as an inpatient, he was still legally able to by firearms. Virginia Tech was a "gun free" campus, a regulation that, in the end, may have done little more than leave Cho's victims defenseless. And even the police, who heroically put their lives on the line for us everyday, cannot be everywhere at all times.

Rather than relying on government, we need to rely on ourselves. We need to have more people owning guns and obtaining concealed-carry permits. We need to have more exposure to the proper handling of guns as we grow up. And we need more of our officials to be armed, especially those officials in charge of our most vulnerable.

One half-baked notion that stands in the way of pursuing such policies is "randomness." For example, a story in the New York Times refers to Virginia Tech student Ross Alameddine as one of Cho's "random shooting victims." Back in March of 2005, teenager Jeff Weise shot and killed nine people at Red Lake High School in Minnesota. An MSNBC article at the time stated that "investigators did not know if a grudge or vendetta led to the killings and that Weise's targets appeared to be random."

Such victims are random only in the sense that the killer does not know them personally. Otherwise, they are victims in a very systematic way. To take a page from Thomas Sowell, note that neither Cho nor Weise targeted a police station or the local National Guard unit -- i.e. those places filled with folks who can shoot back. Instead, they targeted schools, where almost no one has a gun. If we want to minimize the chances of another school shooting, then we need to put guns in the hands of those in charge of schools.

For starters, it should be government policy that every principal and vice principal take firearms training and be armed at all times when on school grounds. Teachers should have the option of doing so.

In universities and colleges, some members of the administration should also be required to be trained in and carry firearms. All administrators and professors should have that option. Universities and colleges should also consider programs were select students would be given such training and given permission to carry a concealed weapon. The schedules of such students would be coordinated so that at least one armed student would be in each classroom building at all times. Students who agreed to participate in these programs could be given a discount on their tuition as an incentive.

Finally, we should consider giving high school and college students firearm training. This will help them become more familiar with and less afraid of guns, and thus more willing to carrying firearms for protection. With more law-abiding people carrying guns, killers like Cho and Weise will have a much harder time finding defenseless human targets.

The fact is thugs are only deterred by those with sufficient firepower. That's why Congress has made it legal for pilots to be armed. If it's a good policy for the protection of airline passengers, why not for the protection of children and young adults? -- American Spectator

My only point of disagreement here is Hogberg's suggestion that, at universities, "select students would be given such training and given permission to carry a concealed weapon." I do not think it would be productive or efficient to have another layer of university bureaucracy in the mix. States such as Virginia already have a concealed handgun permit process that allows persons 21 and older, with the proper training and background checks, to carry weapons. The more immediate solution would be for Virginia to remove its restriction for carrying weapons on state campuses. If a 21 year old student is permitted to carry concealed in accordance with state law, that student should be allowed to carry on campus. -- L

May 15, 2007

Run-in changes lawmaker's stance

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Phillip Morris

Plain Dealer Columnist

It's funny how a gun can in stantly change your perspec tive on things, make you wish you could rewrite history.

State Rep. Michael DeBose, a southside Cleveland Democrat, discovered this lesson the night of May 1, when he thought he was going to die. That's the night he wished he had that gun vote back.

DeBose, who had just returned from Columbus, where he had spent the day in committee hearings, decided to take a short walk up Holly Hill, the street where he has lived with his wife for the past 27 years.

It was late, but DeBose, 51, was restless. The ordained Baptist minister knew his Lee-Harvard neighborhood was changing, but he wasn't scared. The idle, young men who sometimes hang out on his and adjacent streets didn't threaten him.

He is a big man and, besides, he had run the same streets before he found Jesus - and a wife. That night, he just needed a walk.

The loud muffler on a car that slowly passed as he was finishing the walk caught his attention, though. When the car stopped directly in front of his house - three houses from where he stood - he knew there was going to be a problem.

"There was a tall one and a short one," DeBose said, sipping on a McDonald's milkshake and recounting the experience Friday.

"The tall one reached in his pocket and pulled out a silver gun. And they both started running towards me."

"At first I just backed up, but then I turned around and started running and screaming."

"When I started running, the short boy stopped chasing and went back to the car. But the tall boy with the gun kept following me. I ran to the corner house and started banging on Mrs. Jones' door."

It was at that point that the would-be robbers realized that their prey wasn't worth the trouble. Besides, Cheryl, DeBose's wife, and a daughter had heard his screams and had raced out to investigate. Other porch lights began to flicker on.

The loud muffler sped off, and DeBose started rethinking his gun vote.

DeBose twice voted against a measure to allow Ohioans to carry concealed weapons. It became law in 2004.

DeBose voted his conscience. He feared that CCW permits would lead to a massive influx of new guns in the streets and a jump in gun violence. He feared that Cleveland would become the O.K. Corral, patrolled by legions of freshly minted permit holders.

"I was wrong," he said Friday.

"I'm going to get a permit and so is my wife.

"I've changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family.

"I don't want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one."

Since the VT shootings in Blacksburg, Virginia, we have seen all manner of wild-eyed, anti-gunners come out of the woodwork to cynically use this crime as a chance to beat their gun grabbing drums. But, proposing that we send government Stormtroopers to smash down the doors of every home with a gun in it to confiscate their Constitutionally legal firearms is a step I haven't seen in a purportedly responsible newspaper. That is, until the Toledo Blade published a proposal for taking away our right to self-protection that included "Special squads of police" with unlimited powers to confiscate all guns. A hit squad that would traipse about the country invading homes at will and accosting peaceful citizens everywhere.

The author of this tyrannical proposal is Dan Simpson, who is described as "a retired Ambassador" and a "member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. " He is a former US Ambassador to various African states... which can easily be read to mean one who thinks government knows best, darn the citizen's rights, apparently.

The piece that oozes from his pen seems overly long, the first half being an attempt by this anti-gun advocate to make it seem as if he really loves guns. After all, he played Cowboys and Indians as a kid and also had a Red Ryder BB gun. Then, later in life, carried a .357 as a "diplomat". But after the hard to believe disclaimers are dispensed with, Simpson launches into his gun banning proposal.

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

There is a major problem legally with this supposed diplomat's plans. He never once mentions that the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms. His proposal is completely illegal according to the Constitution of the USA unless a Constitutional Convention is called to consider amending the law of the land. One would think that an "Ambassador" would be interested in little things like following the law... but apparently not Mr. Simpson.

Worse, and as mentioned, he wants to form a veritable Stormtrooper army that will maraud throughout the country.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

... On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."

Perhaps Mr. Simpson became too used to the despotic, all powerful leaders in the failed African states to which he was sent as Ambassador and their style of autocratic government made him envious. But whatever the case, Simpson truly has no grasp of the country in which he lives because he doesn't mention any of it. No mention of the Constitution, our history, world history and the despots who ruled with an iron fist over an unarmed populace, or the principles upon which this country was founded make even a tiny appearance in his piece. Just his desire to hand all power to his hand picked goon squad who will roam about the country attacking law abiding citizens.

The hit squad Simpson envisions isn't his only anti-gun measure, of course.

He proposes gun dealers still be "allowed" to sell guns but only to museums. He thinks hunters should still be allowed their gun but he has created his own ideas of a classified "hunting weapon" that will have to be locked up with the police except during "hunting season" -- a vague notion in Simpson's mind obviously. After all, "hunting seasons" are different all over the place and allow for hunting different types of game all year long. Obviously Simpson has no clue of what "hunting season" really means. His idea would necessitate a Federal Hunting law, and would take more power from the various states.

Speaking of hunters, Simpson appears to imagine that all hunters are mass murderers just waiting for their chance to kill all around them, too. But, that their murdering rampages might be a "lesser sort of issue."

There could conceivably also be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating various of their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue.

Simpson also seems to imagine that Mexico and Canada would rush into the gun selling business once we illegally outlaw them and send our Stormtrooping armies throughout the country to confiscate US citizen's firearms.

America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.

Yet, both Mexico and Canada have stricter gun laws than do we, so how he imagines that they would suddenly both become the virtual WalMart of guns is hard to imagine.

All in all, Simpson has done nothing but reveal that he thinks he is smarter than everyone around him and that only HE should be allowed to make all the rules. He also imagines himself smarter than the Founders as well as more able than the Supreme Court to adjudicate what should be allowable under the US Constitution.

It is no wonder that this man doesn't understand America, he seems quite unlike one.

April 26, 2007

One dead, none injured. There's a message here.

In 1994 a gunman carrying a bomb, took hostages at the main library in Salt Lake City. Off-duty sheriff's Lt. Lloyd Prescott secretly, and on his own, joined the hostages. Dressed in plain clothes, he kept a low profile until it became obvious the suspect was done negotiating.

Lt. Prescott explains, "He told the library lady to get some cord and to cut short pieces, at least one short piece and the others long, and the one who drew the short piece was going to be executed." Prescott then drew his gun, yelled for the hostages to hit the floor and shot and killed the suspect. No one else was hurt. -- ksl.com

April 24, 2007

SAF APPLAUDS NEW KATES-MAUSER REPORT ON FIREARMS AND CRIME

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today said a new report by criminologists Prof. Don Kates of the United States and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada that shows the rate of firearms ownership is irrelevant to the homicide and violent crime rate should be required reading, especially for reporters, editorial writers and elected representatives.

Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns.”

“The Kates/Mauser research strips bare the claims by gun control proponents that America is more dangerous than other countries because of our right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “What these two seasoned researchers have revealed is that some of the most violent countries in Europe are those with the most stringent gun laws. It seems hardly a coincidence that here in America, the highest crime rates are in places with strict gun control policies, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. However, in areas here and abroad with high rates of gun ownership violent crime rates are lower.

“The authors note an earlier study by Kates that showed a declining murder rate over the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, while overall gun ownership increased 103 percent and handgun ownership went up 163 percent,” he continued. “Yet during that period, the murder rate dropped 27.7 percent.”

Gottlieb said the timing of this report’s release in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is significant due to the renewal of the gun control debate following the recent events at Virginia Tech.

“Kates and Mauser make a solid factual case against all the emotion-laden rhetoric from the gun control crowd,” Gottlieb stated. “While their research will obviously not close the debate, they’ve made a strong case against the traditional anti-gun mantra. Gun ownership is not the problem, and this new report proves it.”

April 17, 2007

Massacre at a Gun-Free SchoolPredictably, opponents of Second Amendment rights seized opportunistically on the Virginia Tech massacre. "It is long overdue for us to take some common-sense actions to prevent tragedies like this from continuing to occur," said a statement from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino got questions like this one in yesterday's press briefing:

Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools--that's not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does [sic] there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country?

And of course the New York Times, while noted that "it is premature to draw too many lessons from this tragedy," draws one anyway:

What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.

But there is another side to this argument. Longtime readers may recall the lead item in our Jan. 18, 2002, column, which concerned a shooting spree at another Virginia institution of higher learning, the Appalachian School of Law. The gunman, Peter Odighizuwa, killed three, and probably would have killed more but for another student's gun:

Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, officials said.

"We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter," Tracy Bridges, who helped subdue the shooter with other students, said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show. "At that time, Peter threw up his hands and threw his weapon down. Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face, so there was a little bit of a struggle there."

Appalachian is a private institution, Virginia Tech a public one; and Virginia law prohibits guns on campus. Early last year there was an effort in the state Legislature to change that law, but it died in committee. As the Roanoke Times reported at the time:

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

There are reasons one may be wary of arming academia. College students spend a lot of time drinking and carousing, and so perhaps they're better off without firearms. Academic disputes can get vicious; we wouldn't want them to get bloody. But it does not seem a stretch to think that if Cho Seung-hui had encountered someone else with a gun, fewer people would lie dead at Virginia Tech. -- James Taranto

April 11, 2007

Does the 2nd Amendment apply in Pennsylvania?

If someone told you he had been forced to provide the Pennsylvania State Police with their fingerprints, photograph, Social Security number and a host of other personal information, you'd probably assume they were arrested and charged with a crime.

Well, that kind of police ''booking'' process could be in store for Pennsylvania's roughly 3 million firearms owners if gun-control advocates in Harrisburg have their way.

In addition to providing the information mentioned above, gun owners would be required to undergo an annual criminal background check and provide police with the make, model, caliber and serial number for every gun they own -- along with a $10-per-year, per-gun registration fee.

Private gun owners whose applications are approved would receive registration certificates for each firearm. The certificates, which would include the gun owner's name, address, date of birth, photograph and other information, would have to be carried with the associated gun at all times and presented to police on demand.

It gets worse.

Gun owners also would be required to notify state police within 48 hours of any gun that is lost, stolen or destroyed. And gun owners could not sell or give a firearm to anyone else without notifying state police at least 48 hours in advance.

Finally -- and this one is really the icing on the cake -- gun owners would be required to keep all firearms unloaded and disassembled (or bound by a trigger lock or gun safe) unless the firearm is in the owner's immediate control and possession at the owner's residence or business or while being used for legal recreation. -- Christian Berg, Morning Call

Important thoughts.

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. -- George Tucker, a man wounded twice in America's Revolutionary War

No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction, be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. A flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if, in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either [state or federal government] should attempt it, [the Second] Amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. -- William Rawle, appointed as a U.S. attorney by President George Washington

April 1, 2007

Criminals do not obey laws, net even gun laws. Duh!

The FBI recently concluded a five-year study on the ineffectiveness of gun restrictions at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The study, called “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers,” looked at 40 incidents involving attacks using guns (some were deadly) on police officers. Contrary to Brady Campaign propaganda, only one of these guns was obtained legally. Gun shows, a hated target of the gun-grabbers, accounted for exactly zero. Gosh, are we ever confused; we thought gun laws would reduce gun violence! Perhaps such laws would reduce violence, if criminals obeyed the law, but then they wouldn’t be criminals, would they? -- Mark Alexander, Patriot Post

March 29, 2007

Giuliani does not get it.

Because he "understands" the Second Amendment, but doesn't respect it. And also because he's deluded about the connection between guns and crime. Criminals will always get guns. That's why they're criminals. They don't obey the law. The law-abiding, on the other hand, do.

Giuliani says gun control helped reduce N.Y. crime

Rudy Giuliani addressed a potentially troublesome issue with conservative voters, saying his policies as mayor to get handguns off the street helped reduce crime in New York.

"I used gun control as mayor," he said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."

He said what he did as mayor would have no effect on hunting.

No effect on hunting. That's great, for any person who intends on protecting him or herself from the human who intends them harm.

The truth of the matter is the decline of crime in New York is related to several factors, including increased prison sentences for offenders, and his removal of the culture of crime (pornography, prostitution, drugs) from Times Square. For him to argue it was gun control indicates he is either so obsessed with gun control he is either deluded himself, or is willing to misrepresent the facts of the matter. Where ever gun control is applied crime increases exponentially. Just ask the people of Washington, DC and London, England. -- Tammy Bruce, tammybruce.com

Dem anti-gun tyranny in Pennsylvania.

House Bill No. 760 was introduced in the State House of representatives last week.

The bill was introduced by representatives Cruz, Youngblood, Parker, Wheatley, Bennington and Curry.

The legislation calls for every gun in Pennsylvania to be registered with the state, and each registration must be renewed annually. The registration would cost the gun owner $10 per gun each year. The bill also calls for each gun owner to be fingerprinted, have a back ground check, and to submit pass port-style photos for registration cards. The registration card for each gun would then have to be carried with that gun at all times. Any gun that registration is denied for would then be confiscated by the state police. WTAJ TV10

BELLEVUE, WA – Congressional Democrats claim at every turn they “support the Second Amendment,” but the truth came out Thursday when they pulled a coveted District of Columbia voting rights bill because of an amendment that would have ended the long-standing handgun ban.

“This shows the true colors of the Democrat leadership,” Alan M. Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms stated. “It should have been easy for the Democrat caucus to agree to the Republican-sponsored amendment, because of the recent federal appeals court ruling that declared the handgun ban unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

“Instead,” Gottlieb said, “Democrats proved once again that all their avowed support for the Second Amendment is nothing but empty rhetoric. House Democrats had a chance to stand up and be counted, but instead they ran for cover, afraid to have a recorded vote prove that, as a party and as individuals, they remain as anti-gun as ever.”

Republicans attached an amendment to the District voting rights measure that would have essentially restored the Bill of Rights to Washington, D.C. residents. The bill would give District residents full representation in the House of Representatives. It’s a bill Democrats want because the District is heavily Democrat.

“With this delay over the addition of a gun rights amendment,” Gottlieb observed, “House Democrats have demonstrated a new low in moral hypocrisy that, frankly, just didn’t seem possible. It has taken Democrats only three months to erase the years of promises and pontificating they’ve done, trying to convince American voters, and particularly the nation’s 90 million gun owners, that they are not the party of gun control.

“Yet here they are, sacrificing full House representation for a huge constituency, rather than face a vote on a simple gun rights amendment,” he concluded. “Democrats can call this anything they want, they can join the New York Times in blaming Republicans for this debacle, but the truth is simpler and more insidious. If Democrats do not support gun rights for citizens of the District, they don’t support gun rights for citizens anywhere else.” --CCRKBA

[The Founders] made the Second Amendment second only to the First, which protects the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship. They did that because individual dignity and self-respect, which are essential to self-government, are related to a readiness for self-defense—the public’s involvement in public safety. —George Will

March 14, 2007

Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny... Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government. —Rep. Ron Paul

BELLEVUE, WA – A ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that strikes down the District’s 1976 handgun ban and holds that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms is “a landmark for liberty, and an affirmation that everything the gun rights community has been saying for years is correct,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

The 2-1 ruling came in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia. Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote the opinion, with Judge Thomas B. Griffith concurring. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented. The ruling holds that the District’s long-standing ban on carrying a pistol in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional. SAF filed an amicus brief in the case.

In his ruling, Judge Silberman wrote, “In sum, the phrase ‘the right of the people,’ when read intratextually and in light of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual.”

“This is a huge victory for firearm civil rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “It shreds the so-called ‘collective right theory’ of gun control proponents, and squarely puts the Second Amendment where it has always belonged, as a protection of the individual citizen’s right to have a firearm for personal defense.”

Judge Silberman’s ruling notes that the Second Amendment “acknowledges…a right that pre-existed the Constitution like ‘the freedom of speech’.”

“Because the right to arms existed prior to the formation of the new government,” Judge Silberman wrote, “the Second Amendment only guarantees that the right ‘shall not be infringed’.”

Silberman’s ruling also observed, “The right of self-preservation…was understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government.”

“Judge Silberman’s ruling,” Gottlieb said, “reverses 31 years of unconstitutional infringement on the rights of District of Columbia residents, not only to keep and bear arms, but to be safe and secure in their own homes. This is a ruling that should make all citizens proud that we live in a nation where the rights of individual citizens trump political correctness.” -- Second Amendment Foundation

Liberals are obsessive about gun control while they arrogantly ignore the Constitution.

In some ways I’m surprised it took them this long. On Valentine’s Day, 14 February, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) began a campaign to grab just about everything but Cupid’s arrows with the introduction of her bill, HR 1022, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.” This is the same Carolyn McCarthy who introduced HR 297 on the first day of the new Congress, attempting the most massive expansion of the Brady Law since its 1993 passage. McCarthy’s murky definition of “assault weapons” notwithstanding, the legislation’s intent is to re-enact the 1994 Clinton gun grab, while adding a few million more firearms to the haul.

All this leads me to wonder whether the anti-gun crowd simply skips over that pesky constitutional amendment stuck right there between the First and the Third.

Under the Clinton Gun Ban, which expired in 2004 under the Republican-controlled Congress, 19 so-called “assault weapons” —in reality semi-automatic hunting and sporting rifles—were banned for having characteristics that liberals found scary: certain stocks, grips, magazines and so forth. Under that 1994 law, manufacturers could still sell these weapons if they made them look less scary to liberals; HR 1022, however, would ban them entirely.

In addition to eliminating completely the weapons covered under the Clinton law, McCarthy’s bill adds more than a few firearms to the list, including the following:

All semi-automatic shotguns; all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles; the most popular competition sporting rifles—including the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and even today’s version of the American infantryman’s rifle of World War II, the M1 Garand; any shotgun or semi-automatic rifle having “any characteristic that can function as a grip”; any automatic fixed-magazine pistol exceeding a ten-round capacity; and any parts needed to repair or refurbish guns in circulation that are covered under the ban.

In addition, the legislation would give the Attorney General the prerogative to add any other shotgun or rifle to the list that the government ever deems not to be a “sporting” weapon. Not content with simply banning these weapons, HR 1022 also takes steps toward national firearm registration by mandating new rules for weapons and parts sales. Finally, as if all this weren’t enough, McCarthy’s bill would be a permanent ban, unlike the Clinton Ban, which expired after a ten-year trial period.

Legislation of this sort is becoming an obsession with Democrats -- The Federalist Patriot

February 23, 2007

The reason I try to convince all my women friends to learn to shoot.

Self-defenseBy Cam EdwardsFriday, February 23, 2007, Townhall.com

In a shameless attempt to curry favor with Mary Katharine Ham, I thought I’d devote this column to some recent armed citizen stories involving females.

The first story comes from Darlington, South Carolina earlier this week. A woman was alone in her home when an intruder gained entrance, most likely through the unlocked patio door. As the woman entered the living room, she saw the stranger. The intruder also saw her, and began moving towards the woman. That’s when she ran to her bedroom and retrieved her pistol. Heading back to the living room, she told the intruder she was armed. When the bad guy saw the gun, he fled out the back door. The woman wasn’t harmed, but I imagine she’s probably keeping her doors locked these days.

Another woman, this time in Indianapolis, had her door locked over the weekend, but that didn’t stop two men from trying to rob her. The woman told police that as a stranger was breaking down her door, she fired a shot. One of the intruders was killed at the scene, but police say another one escaped. The intended victim was unharmed.

And then there’s the story of Suzanne Carson. I know a little more about her story because I recently spoke to her on “Cam and Company”. Suzanne’s married and a mother of two in the small town of Coalfield, Tennessee. Last Friday, about ten minutes after Suzanne’s husband left for work, she heard a noise in the kitchen. Leaving the bedroom where her three-year old was sleeping, she walked down the hallway and looked through the kitchen to see a man trying to get in through the back door. Suzanne dashed back to her bedroom and retrieved a pistol, then ran back to the kitchen in time to see the door opening and the man coming inside.

Suzanne warned the man that she had a gun, but that didn’t stop him. Either did the first shot Suzanne fired. The man kept coming into the home, closer to Suzanne and her children. Suzanne fired two more shots before the man turned and ran out the back door. She and her children were unharmed. In fact, her three-year old child slept through the entire incident, though her four-year old son heard the sounds of shots fired.

Suzanne didn’t grow up in a family that owned guns. In fact, her husband B.J. has been trying to get her to learn to shoot since they’ve been married, but it wasn’t until a month ago that she first went to the range. As you can imagine, Suzanne says she’ll be heading back with great frequency after what happened to her.

Three stories of self-defense with three happy endings. What would have happened if these women didn’t have a gun to help them defend themselves? Would we be reading about three murders, three robberies, or three rapes? Would there be Amber Alerts for two missing children from Coalfield, Tennessee? Because these women took steps to protect themselves we get to applaud their courage, rather than mourning their deaths.

This past Monday night, a gunman walked into a popular Salt Lake City mall and opened fire with a shotgun. The trench coat-clad gunman was heavily armed and intended to kill as many people as he could. He killed five people before being challenged by an armed off-duty police officer. Once again, a gun saved lives. . . . The mall was crowded with Valentine's Day shoppers. Doubtless, had the off-duty officer not confronted the gunman, the death toll would have been staggering. -- Columnist Chuck Baldwin

P.S. Although the press has played it down, the shooter was Muslim. Significant? I don't know. -- L

February 16, 2007

The myth of the "gun-show loophole" blasted.

PRESS IGNORES FBI STUDY SAYING GUN LAWS IGNORED BY COP KILLERS

BELLEVUE, WA – For more than two months, a damning report on a five-year study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation about how cop-killing criminals ignore gun laws and where they get their guns has languished in the shadows, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms revealed today.

“The public has a right to know the contents of this report, which was revealed to the International Association of Chiefs of Police last year,” said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. “According to the Force Science News, research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows.”

The study is called “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.” Waldron called it a “smoking gun” in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns. Anti-gun politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know as they campaign against the so-called “gun show loophole,” he said.

The newsletter quotes Ed Davis, who told the IACP that none of these criminals who attacked police officers was “hindered by any law – federal, sate or local – that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.” The Force Science News is published by the Force Science Research Center, a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University in Mankato. The newsletter also stated, “In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows.”

“This is a devastating revelation,” Waldron said, “and while Mr. Davis should be applauded for telling the IACP that criminals ignore gun laws, we’re wondering why the IACP has been quiet about this, and why the mainstream press never reported this, and probably never will.

“Force Science News calls the gun show loophole a ‘media myth’,” Waldron said, “and that’s what gun rights activists have been saying for years. It’s time for the IACP leadership to acknowledge that gun laws don’t stop criminals, that they only restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens, and that gun shows are not the ‘arms bazaars for criminals’ as they have been portrayed.” -- CCRKBA

Want to know how great the UK's restrictive gun laws are? When guns are outlawed...

U.S. ATTORNEY LETTER TO BLOOMBERG ‘A SIGNIFICANT VICTORY,’ SAYS SAF

BELLEVUE, WA – A letter to the office of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg from the U.S. Department of Justice scolding the mayor’s infamous 2006 gun sting operation and advising that Bloomberg’s administration could face “potential legal liabilities” over such stings was called a “significant victory” against the Big Apple mayor’s anti-gun antics by the Second Amendment Foundation.

Earlier this week, SAF was advised by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that the agency is investigating Bloomberg’s multi-state sting operation “in order to determine if violations of Federal firearms laws have occurred.”

“This new development,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb, “adds insult to injury for Bloomberg. We were adamant early on that this vigilante attack on gun dealers by Bloomberg and his posse of private investigators went way beyond his legal authority. Now it appears the Justice Department believes likewise.”

The New York Daily News reported Thursday that Michael Battle, director of the executive office for United States Attorneys at the Department of Justice, sent the letter warning Bloomberg’s administration that it could face “potential legal liabilities” if such sting operations continue. Battle also said the Justice Department will not be filing criminal charges against any of the 15 gun dealers targeted by Bloomberg’s 2006 lawsuits over alleged “straw man” purchases. Such operations lack “proper law enforcement authority,” Battle’s letter stated.

“Bloomberg’s house of cards is starting to crumble,” Gottlieb stated. “This underscores why SAF called upon Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to investigate Bloomberg’s rogue operation last August, and why we were delighted to learn earlier this week that ATF is conducting a thorough investigation of this enterprise.

“It is both sad and revealing,” Gottlieb added, “that more than 150 mayors around the country have been drawn into Bloomberg’s folly by joining his anti-gun mayors’ coalition. That group’s launching pad was this bogus gun sting, which is now imploding. Every one of these city leaders is now linked to this misadventure. These mayors let their anti-gun bias, rather than good sense, lull them into joining and supporting what is becoming a colossal blunder, and now might be a good time to reconsider that participation.”

February 6, 2007

SAF ENCOURAGED BY ATF INVESTIGATION OF BLOOMBERG’S VIGILANTE STING

BELLEVUE, WA – Five months after the Second Amendment Foundation called on U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to investigate New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for obstruction of justice relating to Bloomberg’s rogue “sting” operation against gun retailers in five states, the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has confirmed in a letter that an investigation is underway.

SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb said today that a letter he received from W. Larry Ford, Assistant ATF Director for Public and Governmental Affairs, confirms that the agency “is investigating the matter in order to determine if violations of federal firearms laws occurred.” Ford could not offer details in his letter, explaining to Gottlieb that the agency cannot comment on “an open investigation.”

“We’re delighted that ATF is taking this matter seriously,” Gottlieb said. “Mayor Bloomberg dispatched private investigators to several states, where they apparently made straw gun purchases in an effort to file civil lawsuits against gun dealers. The mayor refused to turn over alleged evidence obtained during this vigilante operation to ATF or other proper authorities, and instead exploited the affair to advance his own political agenda.

“Nowhere in state or federal statute does the mayor of New York or any other municipality have the authority to launch such a rogue investigation, especially one that extends beyond his jurisdiction,” Gottlieb said. “Our letter to Attorney General Gonzales raised serious questions, and I am now assured that the ATF is looking for some serious answers. Mayor Bloomberg should step forward and provide those answers without delay.

“Instead,” Gottlieb observed, “Bloomberg has beguiled scores of his colleagues to join this anti-gun enterprise. This is an area of serious criminal investigation in which municipal mayors have absolutely no business interjecting themselves, especially for a political sound bite.

“In the end,” Gottlieb said, “we understand that a final decision whether to prosecute Bloomberg and others involved in last year’s illicit sting is up to the Justice Department. But right now, it appears that ATF is doing its job in a slow, deliberate and painstaking manner. I’ll repeat what I said last year: Simply because Bloomberg is a billionaire does not put him above the law. There’s no room in America for his kind of political thuggery.”

We established however some, although not all its[self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people;that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."[Emphasis added] -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Cartwright, 1824)

December 15, 2006

An obsolete right?

News bulletin: The Second Amendment’s guaranteed right to bear arms now applies only to militias, not individuals. At least that’s what a gang of Beltway lawyers would have us believe. The District is in court defending its handgun ban against proponents of the Second Amendment, using the old gun-grabber argument that “a well regulated Militia” is the emphasis, rather than “the right of the people.” A mere cursory reading of the actual text puts the lie to their claim: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The premise is that the militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The right is that the people may be armed. Why would we need an amendment assuring that the military is armed?

In 2004, a judge in this case informed six DC residents that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. According to what constitution? The plaintiffs rightly appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is pondering whether “out-dated militias” also means that the general right to bear arms is no longer needed. “That’s quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary,” Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, marveled. “If we decide that it’s no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?” --Federalist Patriot

The great equalizer

Unless you get upstate New York television stations on your satellite dish or surf TV stations' Web sites, you probably haven't heard about what happened to Raymond and Joyce Papin.

On Dec. 4, the couple had retired for the evening when they heard a noise in their house on the outskirts of Alexandria, a town of about 4,000 on the St. Lawrence River. Mr. Papin, 82, got up and found two masked men in camouflage clothing poking around his kitchen, according to WWTI-TV Channel 50. When the robbers demanded money, Mr. Papin smashed the smaller of the two in the face with a sugar bowl, and a struggle ensued.

Seconds later, Mrs. Papin, 74, entered the kitchen packing a shotgun and told the intruders to beat it. They obliged. The Papins were shaken by the incident, but uninjured. The criminals likewise were unharmed, but also went away empty-handed. The thugs figured the Papins would be easy marks because they are elderly and live on a farm a good distance from the village. What they didn't figure on was the shotgun.

Criminologists estimate at least 2 million crimes a year in America are thwarted in just this manner: armed citizens use guns to defend themselves and their property without ever firing a shot. Unfortunately, most media outlets don't consider this news, so almost all the incidents go unreported.

But think how many more crimes could be averted if anti-gun politicians weren't so obsessed with making the job of criminals easier by disarming upright citizens.

December 7, 2006

Concealed Weapon Keeps Man Safe in Attempted Carjacking

December 6th, 2006 @ 10:00pm

KSL.com

Samantha Hayes Reporting

A Salt Lake City man says his gun saved his life today when a man threatened to take his car. It's a story that adds fuel to the debate over Utah's concealed weapons law.

The suspect in this case has not been caught-yet. It's probably fair to say he'll think twice before ever threatening to steal someone's car again.

Even when running errands, just like he was doing this morning, Mike Taylor is on guard.

Mike Taylor, Concealed Weapon Carrier: "The police have their hands full with everything and I don't think they could be every place at once."

So Taylor was ready when, he says, a man threatened to steal his car.

Mike Taylor: "Finally he told me he was going to kill me and take my car for himself. At that point I felt like he was going to kill me and I feared for my life so I drew my firearm and called police."

He never fired a shot. Clark Aposhian, Bureau of Criminal Identification Chairman says that is what usually happens.

Clark Aposhian, Chairman BCI Board: "We have not seen any type of pattern of abuse or escalation of these types of robberies. We haven't seen blood in the street that a lot of my adversaries or detractors would talk about."

Maura Carabello, Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah: "They could injure themselves, often not well equipped psychologically; they often don't know how to shoot or handle a weapon with proficiency."

She says what happened to Taylor is the best possible outcome, but not always the norm.

Maura Carabello: "My reaction in general, though, is we are lucky. We are lucky the permit holder is safe."

Taylor says he has carried the permit for six years; he didn't think he'd need to use it this morning.

The Union of Islamic Courts senior leaders have today ordered the armed businesspeople and ordinary people to hand their weapons over to Islamic Courts, issuing decree concerning the ban on weapons in the capital Mogadishu.

The decree signed by Islamic Courts executive council leader Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed has warned local businesspeople and other individuals probably armed to surrender their weapons to the Courts administration.

Most of Somalia's firms' owners and businesspeople possess largest numbers of trucks mounted with anti-aircraft guns and uncountable small arms for the protection of their businesses.

The Islamic Courts have appointed three senior Islamists for the collection of the weapons. Sheik Muktar Robow Abu mansoor, Col. Mohammed Hashi Daqare and Mohammed Abdulle Gesey were the appointed.

Earlier Islamists in central provinces of the country have threatened they would punish non-Islamists caught with carrying a weapon. The law banning weapons has been introduced into the capital on Monday.

Somalia's Islamic Courts seized most central and southern Somalia, including the capital early June this year after fatal battles in which nearly one thousand people lost their lives, most of them civilians, with warlords.

November 17, 2006

Criminals don't obey the law! What a shocker!

District slayings usually with gun

By Matthew CellaTHE WASHINGTON TIMESNovember 17, 2006

The District is among the major U.S. cities with the highest percentage of people being killed by firearms, despite having one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. A recent Metropolitan Police Department report on homicides from 2001 to 2005 states that 901 of 1,126 homicide victims, or about 80 percent, were fatally shot. "It's a problem," Chief Charles H. Ramsey said. "It may be something that's with us for a while." Firearms last year alone were used to commit 157 of the District's 196 homicides, or about 80 percent. That percentage has remained relatively consistent since 2001, when a five-year low of 78.4 percent of homicides were committed using guns. FBI crime statistics for 2005 show 10,100 of the country's 14,860 homicide victims, or 68 percent, were killed by guns. The District's percentage of gun homicides is comparable to those in other big cities, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. In 2004, the last year for which comprehensive statistics were available, the 79.3 percent of homicides involving guns in the District was higher than the 61.1 percent in New York. Chicago reported 75.2 percent, and Baltimore had 77.5 percent. Atlanta had a significantly lower percentage of gun homicides than the District, 73.2 percent, despite less-restrictive gun laws. In Georgia, gun owners are not required to obtain a license or a permit, there is no waiting period to buy a handgun and no background check for second-party sales. The District did have a lower percentage of gun homicides than New Orleans at 92 percent, Los Angeles at 80.9 percent and Detroit at 80.5 percent. D.C. law restricts ownership of most guns that were not registered before 1977. Privately owned rifles and shotguns must be kept at home and stored unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or a similar device. Michael Campbell, a spokesman for the Washington field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said that part of the problem is the District being surrounded by jurisdictions with less-restrictive regulations. "You can't seal the borders," he said. "There's always going to be a market for guns." Chief Ramsey agreed. "We have tough gun laws, but most of our guns are coming from Virginia and Maryland," he said. D.C. police have recovered nearly 2,400 guns thus far this year, the most during the past five years. Those figures do not include the 337 guns turned in as part of a gun buy-back program in September. Chief Ramsey thinks most gun owners are responsible, thus is not in favor of eliminating gun ownership. "Guns and our society go hand in hand," the chief said. But he favors "very, very stiff penalties" for people who violate the law. The District's firearms restrictions, which were passed in 1976, include a maximum one-year penalty or $1,000 fine for first-time offenders and a maximum five-year penalty or $5,000 fine for second offenders. "To me, that's not strong enough," the police chief said. Carrying a pistol without a license in the District can be either a felony or a misdemeanor charge, depending on whether the offender was carrying the pistol someplace other than in his or her home or business. Felons convicted of firearms possession can get up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Felons who use a firearm during the commission of a violent crime can receive a maximum 15-year prison sentence. Possessing unregistered ammunition always is a misdemeanor.

October 20, 2006

Anti-Gun stealth groups

Today gun-control forces are trying to undermine the importance of the sportsmen and gun owners’ vote by attempting to divide and conquer. An example of such a group is the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA).

AHSA purports to be a pro-hunting, pro-conservation and pro-gun organization, but its leadership and board would qualify as a blue-ribbon committee of activists opposed and actively working against our nation’s rich heritage of firearms freedoms. The AHSA leadership includes a president who funds the Brady Campaign; an executive director who is a paid witness against the firearms industry and consultant to several national and state self-professed gun-control groups; and another officer who, in addition to moonlighting as the head of a Massachusetts-based gun-ban group, is also a former member of the Brady Campaign’s board of directors. All the camouflage in the world can’t hide their real anti-gun agenda.

It can sometimes be difficult to spot a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but if America’s sportsmen and hunters listen carefully to a candidate’s rhetoric, research their voting record and look to trusted organizations like the National Shooting Sports Foundation for help, it’s easy to see through the camouflage. -- Lawrence G. Keane, Esq., Human Events

Recently, someone asked me whether the prospect of a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives would affect my future firearms purchases. The answer is an emphatic “yes.” Although it won’t affect the number of unnecessary gun purchases I make – that number will remain ridiculously high – it will affect the types of guns I buy.

Before the recent poll numbers indicating a possible change in leadership - in both the House and Senate - I was focusing strictly on gun purchases designed to improve my versatility as a hunter. Since people often call from around the country to invite me hunting I always have to be prepared to take anything from the smallest squirrel to the largest grizzly bear. Now, I’m thinking a lot more about tactical and self-defense models.

To be sure, Pelosi would love to see something like the Clinton “assault rifle ban” of 1994 put into place early in her tenure as Speaker Pelosi. (It really hurts to write those last two words!). But in order for that to happen, two things will need to take place. She’ll need a Democratic Senate majority and a Democratic President. Needless to say, both of those things cannot happen for over two more years.

So I’m preparing now for a worst-case scenario by setting aside about five thousand dollars to be spent on weapons and accessories that may well be targeted by future Democratic leaders. There’s a strong possibility that all of those funds will be spent on products made by the fine folks at Springfield Armory.

First and foremost, I plan to stock up on 13-round magazines for my main home and car defense weapon – the .45 ACP XD by Springfield. These magazines will be almost as rare as a feminist orgasm if the Democrats take over. After that issue is resolved, the fun will really begin with my next rifle purchase. It will be an easy choice, given what I’ve heard about the Loaded Standard M1A Rifle.

This gun fires the highly accurate and powerful .308 Winchester round. It comes equipped with a ten-round detachable magazine but don’t even think about buying this gun without getting a few 20-round pre-ban magazines, too. This is really the ultimate survival gun for those who refuse to relinquish responsibility for their safety to the local, state, and federal government.

After I break in my new M1A Rifle, I plan to expand my collection of .45 ACPs with a 1911-A1 Micro Compact by Springfield. Needless to say, this light and compact weapon is the ultimate gun for those with concealed carry permits. The fact that it comes direct from the factory with Novak night sights is also a real plus. If you are stranded by the side of the road with this gun in your pocket no one will know you have it until it’s too late. The combination of the night sights and the .45 ACP power will be too much for almost any predator.

Make absolutely certain you purchase this gun with the optional light rail (XML min-light included) for an extra $66. This is the kind of option that will likely come under fire if the Democrats take over.

Finally, I want to top off this round of new additions by adding a new 1911 Lightweight Operator in .45 ACP. The gun - in addition to being absolutely gorgeous – is equipped with a light rail, which will allow you to use your XML mini-light on more than one firearm. The five-inch barrel will make the Operator my most accurate .45 ACP and should replace the XD as the home defense weapon (and relegate the latter to full-time car duty). This gun, also equipped with factory Novak night sights, has an MSRP of $1253.

Getting started on this new spending spree may be the only positive thing about a potential Democratic Congressional takeover. For those who noticed, I’ve still got a budget of over $500 after adding these three news gems. The balance of course, will have to go towards a new gun safe. The Adams office is getting a little cluttered these days.

October 13, 2006

More guns, not fewer

While the gun-grabbers of the Left cry out for more gun control in the wake of recent school shootings, The Patriot advocates the exact opposite. The Founders crafted the Second Amendment to mean what it says: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” (emphasis added). Citizens were thus granted protection against tyrannical government—among the first priorities of any tyrant is disarming the people—but the logic applies to many other areas.

Let’s look at schools. In Joplin, Missouri, this week, a seventh-grader fired a Mac-90 assault rifle in his middle school, though no one was injured. Missouri Governor Matt Blunt used the occasion to advocate a law allowing teachers to carry guns, much like the arming of commercial pilots. We couldn’t agree more. While law-enforcement officers have always been very quick to respond when murderers attack schools, armed teachers and staff may have prevented many tragic deaths. As it stands, “gun free zones” only empower the killers.

The White House, meanwhile, hastily organized a conference on preventing violence in schools. Gun-control advocates cried foul because they were uninvited, but considering that their ideas have already been tried and failed, why bother? Better ideas were discussed, such as character education and other prevention techniques, pointing to the need to address the underlying problem, and not simply focus only on the tools of violence. In his 27 May 1999 testimony, none other than Darrell Scott, father of Columbine victim Rachel Scott, pointed to the example of Cain and Abel: “The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain.” Amen. -- Federalist Patriot

An armed population are citizens. Disarmed people are slaves.

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Emphasis added] -- George Mason (speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 14 June 1778)

October 9, 2006

Deadly gun-free zones

This shooting [in Pennsylvania], and the ones last week in Colorado and Wisconsin, and every school shooting in the past 10 years all had one thing in common: They all happened in so-called ‘gun-free school zones,’ where students and adult staff are essentially helpless. Gun control extremism has disarmed the wrong people and created risk-free environments for those who would commit murder and mayhem. It is time to re-consider gun-free school zone laws and the zero-tolerance mentality such laws foster. We can no longer afford the empty-headed Utopian illusion that gun control and gun-free zones will keep children safe. Like all other gun control laws, this one has been a monumental failure, and it is literally killing our children. If it saves the life of just one child, abolishing such laws will be worth the effort. —Alan Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation

October 5, 2006

Not funny, and wrong again

Rosie's Softheaded Scenario

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 10/5/2006

Gun Control: Ms. O'Donnell exploits the Amish tragedy to blame the National Rifle Association and "gun lobby." But is the issue too many guns or the fact that at schools there's often one gun too few?

On Tuesday's edition of ABC's "The View," well-known liberal activist and sometimes comedian Rosie O'Donnell used the occasion of the tragic hostage-taking and killings at an Amish school in Pennsylvania to editorialize that the event should provoke even tighter gun control.

The "queen of nice" opined: "I think the horror of imagining 6- to- 13-year-old girls handcuffed together and shot execution-style, one by one, is perhaps enough to awaken the nation that maybe we need some stricter gun control laws."

She went on to blame "the lobby organization of the NRA, allowing no rules and no registration and absolutely, sort of, carte blanche to make guns available to Americans in a way they're not in the rest of the world."

Well, the National Rifle Association does support sensible and workable things such as instant computerized checks of gun purchasers and mandatory punishment for offenders just for carrying or using a gun in a crime. But it doesn't believe in disarming potential victims, and supports concealed-weapons laws that have demonstrably reduced crime and murder rates around the country.

Gun control advocates such as O'Donnell prefer laws like the Gun Free School Zones Act, which have turned the area inside and outside schools into a free-fire zone for wackos who know there's little possibility they'll be confronted by an armed guard, teacher, principal or parent who might prevent these tragedies by confronting, keeping at bay or disabling an armed intruder.

Last year, seven people were killed at a high school in Red Lake, Minn., that did have a security guard. But the guard, the one individual who could have prevented the tragedy, and who saw the armed and dangerous shooter approach the school, was unarmed.

The problem in Red Lake was not that the nation has too many guns, but that it had one too few. An armed security guard could have held the killer at bay or disabled him. On more than one occasion armed citizens have successfully intervened in school shootings to save lives.

Few Americans are aware that in an October 1997 shooting spree at a Pearl, Miss., high school that left two students dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and immobilized the shooter until police arrived, preventing further killings.

A school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., that left one teacher dead was stopped only after the owner of a nearby restaurant pointed a gun at the shooter while he was attempting to reload and held him at bay, again preventing more deaths, until police arrived 11 minutes later.

Another school shooting occurred in January 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, when a disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and another student. Two of the three students who overpowered the gunman were armed; they ran to their cars to get the guns they used to disarm the shooter and prevent more deaths.

Back in 2000, when O'Donnell moved to Greenwich, Conn., from Nyack, N.Y., because Greenwich, in her view, was a "safe" community, the Stamford Advocate reported that her bodyguard applied to the Greenwich Police Department for a concealed-weapon permit to carry a firearm when he escorted her then 4-year-old to school. Apparently her children deserve armed protection, but not the children of those in her audience.

Those who say we will be made safer by disarming potential victims are shooting blanks. -- Investor's Business Daily

October 3, 2006

The right to self-defense protected.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and law-abiding gun owners scored a significant victory when the United States Congress acted to prohibit the confiscation of legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during states of emergency, barring practices conducted by officials in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This action was included in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill that passed both chambers of Congress. This bill now heads to President Bush for his expected signature.

“Following the chaos and civil disorder in New Orleans when the city effectively suspended the Second Amendment, NRA vowed to make sure we never again witnessed this kind of desecration on our rights,” declared Chris W. Cox. “As promised, NRA set out to pass legislation at both the federal and state levels to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens.”

H.R. 5013, the “Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act,” was introduced in the House by Congressman Bobby Jindal (LA - 1) passed the House on July 25, 2006 with a broad bi-partisan margin of 322-99. Senator David Vitter (R-La) introduced the Senate version of the bill, which passed the United States Senate by 84-16, the largest margin of victory for a NRA-backed measure.

“The essence of the ‘Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act’ was so compelling that it received strong bipartisan support in Congress,” continued Cox. “When 911 is non-existent and law enforcement personnel are busy with search and rescue missions and other duties, law abiding Americans want to defend their families and loved ones in times of emergency. Your NRA helped guarantee their freedom to do just that.”

“On behalf of all NRA members nationwide, I want to thank Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Sen. Vitter for their leadership in introducing this legislation and seeing these fundamental bills through to passage,” concluded Cox. -- NRA-ILA

October 1, 2006

"Gun-free" zones don't stop killers.

The violence at Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Colo., demonstrates the fallacy and false sense of security created by 'gun free school zone' laws, a Second Amendment group says. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) says it is time to reassess such laws. 'All they have done is create target-rich, no-risk environments for monsters who have no fear of encountering an armed teacher or administrator, or a legally-armed private citizen who might happen to be in the building,' said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. 'This sort of thing didn't happen before the advent of gun-free school zone laws,' Gottlieb said. -- CNS News

No, I didn’t write that headline just to get you to click through to my column. All right, maybe I did a little, but there really is no better way to describe it.

Over the past couple weeks, there have been a couple stories floating around that just warmed my little heart, but they didn’t get a lot of attention, so I have decided to give them plenty. Do you wonder what kind of story it takes to warm my cold, conservative heart? Well, wonder no longer.

The woman knew she was in trouble. She told him yes and moved to the front passenger-side door.

She pulled out her pistol and heard a knife click open.

When she looked back, she saw the man was holding a knife pointed downward in his hand.

She quickly turned, pointed the gun right at him and asked, "Are you really sure you want to do whatever you're going to do?"

He took off running, the father said.

Hot.

In 2002, Charmaine Dunbar met a man on an early-morning walk, who threatened her with a rifle. She shot him twice in the stomach. It turned out he was suspected of six sexual assaults in her neighborhood and had intended her for his seventh victim.

The second time she saw the man, she was walking up Brushton Avenue around 5:35 a.m. She recognized his clothing. "Oh my God," she thought, "It's him."

She walked faster, unobtrusively getting her gun ready, but kept it under her sleeve. When they reached the top of steep Brushton Avenue, he was out of breath and stopped; she continued. She looked behind her once, and she saw him leaning over, pulling his rifle out from his pants.

Knowing she needed to fire before he was able to take aim, she steadied her gun and fired twice at his abdomen. He continued to lean over, apparently unaffected, and Dunbar thought, "Oh my God, my bullets didn't work."

A pregnant woman was lying on the couch in her home when she heard the mini-blinds on her kitchen door rustle. Police say the woman, whose 1- and 3-year-old children were also in the home, got up to investigate and found a man trying to break in.

When she spotted him, he ran around the corner of the duplex to the front door and tried to kick it in. The woman warned the prowler that she had a gun. When he replied that he also had a gun, she shot at him and he returned fire. The intruder was hit in the chest and died on the way to the hospital. No one else was injured.

Maternal instinct.

This is the kind of women’s empowerment that gets me going. A new women’s studies program just doesn’t do it for me the way a gleaming .380 does.

I’m going to stay armed with plenty of anecdotes. That way, the next time someone comes to me with an anti-gun canard, I can say, “Are you really sure you want to do whatever you're going to do?”

Hot.

September 14, 2006

Stricter gun laws don't work.

"A man with a black trench coat whose shooting rampage in a Montreal college killed one person and wounded 19 others before he was slain by police said on a blog in his name that he liked to play a role-playing Internet game about the Columbine shootings," the Associated Press reports from Quebec's largest city:

Six shooting victims remained in critical condition, including two in extremely critical condition. . . .

That shooting spurred efforts for new gun laws achieved mainly as the results of efforts by survivors and relatives of Lepine's victims.

The Web site of WFIE-TV in Evansville, Ind., notes another Montreal mass murder: "In 1992 a Concordia University professor shot and killed four colleagues."

Those new gun laws certainly worked out well, didn't they? -- James Taranto, Best of the Web

NY GUN LAWS & THE GRANNY

By JOHN R. LOTT JR.

September 14, 2006 -- SHE looked like the perfect victim. Last Fri day, 56-year-old Margaret Johnson was leaving her building in her wheelchair. Ex cept for her small dog, she was alone and didn't see the criminal attack her from behind. Having suffered bruises to her neck and arm, a friend of Johnson's said, "She was scared for her life. She's devastated."

But this attack ended differently than most crimes in New York City. As her attacker grabbed her "violently" and "choked" her, Johnson pulled out a handgun and shot once, hitting the criminal in the elbow. Johnson was fortunate that she was able to defend herself.

The city obviously wasn't there to protect Johnson. A police officer could have handled it, but cops can't be everywhere, and they virtually always arrive after a crime has occurred.

Nor does it appear that the city was doing a particularly good job of keeping the criminal off the street to begin with. Johnson's attacker had been previously arrested nine times, primarily for the violent crime of robbery, and he had served time in prison for selling illegal substances. One can only wonder how many times he was never caught.

Even worse, if Mayor Bloomberg would have enforced New York City's gun-control laws, it's Johnson who would be in jail. Her license only allows her to carry a handgun that is unloaded and in a locked container to and from a firearms range. With an attacker choking her, there is no way she could have unlocked and loaded her gun.

Ironically, just last week Bloomberg went to Washington, D.C., and lashed out at those who failed to stop people who "possess a gun illegally." What would Bloomberg recommend Johnson have done, had she sought to follow the law?

Bloomberg might want to keep in mind Johnson's case in his lawsuits against gun dealers. The suits mention only the harm and none of the possible benefits from people owning guns to protect themselves.

Considering how others benefit from guns goes against every reflex Bloomberg has. Even after a City Council member was killed at City Hall a few years ago, Bloomberg questioned why the murdered councilman, James Davis, would want to carry a gun. Davis, a retired police officer, had a permit to carry a gun, but Bloomberg found it very troubling: "I don't know why people carry guns," the mayor said. "Guns kill people."

Bloomberg's crime-fighting solution was then to ban off-duty and former cops from carrying guns in City Hall. But the criminal was not an officer. Such bans have only one possible outcome: Criminals have less to worry about; in these "gun-free zones," fewer people can act to defend themselves and others.

Coincidentally, last week the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association announced its quixotic plan to push for right-to-carry concealed-handgun laws in the state. Some 40 other states already allow people to carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and meet age and some training requirements. Some 600,000 people have concealed-handgun permits just in New York's neighboring state, Pennsylvania.

The Brady Campaign, the gun-control advocacy group, last week responded to a call for a right-to-carry law by saying: "Oh yeah, that's going to happen - when hell freezes over."

Too bad. It would be nice if the Margaret Johnsons of New York were able to defend themselves legally.

John R. Lott Jr. is the dean's visiting professor at SUNY Binghamton and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns."

August 31, 2006

A paranoid knee-jerk reaction from anti-gun morons in the UK.

ANTI-GUN campaigners voiced their concern last night after figures showed the number of legally owned guns in Suffolk had soared by 40% in five years." [Emphasis added] -- Danielle Nuttall, EADT24

Why aren't the anti-gun nuts and IANSA voicing concern over the massive increase in illegal guns in the hands of criminals in the UK, or the tremendous increase of gun related crimes since their brilliant gun ban laws?

Another brilliant observation: 'A spokesman for IANSA said: “It's totally possible every single rifle has been carefully justified. But guns can end up being used illegally. Our concern is not that they are going to be used in gun grime in the sense of muggings in the street, but rather more likely seeing an increase in fatalities in domestic violence as mostly men obtain guns".' [Emphasis added]

Cars, knives, fireplace pokers, hammers, axes, cricket bats, etc., etc., etc. can "end up being used illegally". And let's not overlook the blatantly sexist remark about men. To Liberals, especially Liberal feminists, all men are potentially rapists. To the IANSA, all men are potentially murderous wife abusers.

These people really make me ill. -- L

August 11, 2006

Stand your ground.

Fifteen states in the last year have come to the realization that the Second Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution, and they have enacted laws expanding the right of self-defense. Crime victims can use deadly force—particularly when defending their homes—without the fear of being criminalized themselves. These "stand your ground" laws are critical in the reduction of crime rates were they are implemented. Florida began the current wave of pro-gun laws, followed by several other Southern and Midwestern states. Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign, of course, decries the laws as a "license to kill." Tell that to the next woman who halts a would-be rapist in his tracks by employing her constitutional right. -- Federalist Patriot

BELLEVUE, WA – A gun “buy back” staged this week by the Detroit, Mich. Police was so successful that it ran out of money, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) is concerned that it may have allowed some criminals to successfully get rid of their murder weapons.

“All of the guns taken in by this project will be melted down, no questions asked,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “That’s just swell. Detroit homicides are up 17 percent so far this year, and this program just might be letting some killer destroy the evidence that could put him or her behind bars. Brilliant, just brilliant!”

The Associated Press reported that as of July 31, there were 237 homicides in the Motor City. That’s up from 203 for the same period last year. If the pattern continues, there could be more than 400 murders by the end of this year.

“The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press both are reporting how delighted the police are that they’re getting such a great response to the gun turn-in program,” Gottlieb observed. “If you had killed somebody and the cops were promising to take your gun, no questions asked, and turn it into a boat anchor or something, you would definitely want to put a smile on the nearest cop’s face, especially if you got between $50 and $200 in the swap.

“We’re not sure what Police Chief Ella Bully-Cummings is thinking,” he added, “but she can’t be considering the possibility that a killer, or maybe several killers, are anonymously getting rid of the key piece of evidence that could link them to a violent crime.

“Aside from the fact that the term ‘buy back’ erroneously suggests that these guns were ever the property of the city, paying for surrendered firearms without even checking whether they and the people turning them in may be linked to a crime is monumentally stupid,” Gottlieb marveled. “We’ve watched this phenomenon for years in many cities, and every time, the backers of these publicity stunts indicate it is more important to get guns off the street than to possibly catch some criminal. That is both absurd and outrageous. People who fund these programs are proud of themselves when they ought to be ashamed.”

July 31, 2006

"When guns are outlawed...." More from "gun-free" UK

Figures show 'widespread use of guns'

Barnet has seen a 68 per cent rise in muggings by gunpoint in thepast year, according to new figures released by the Metropolitan Police.

In the year to March 31, 2006, there were 42 such offences in theborough, compared to the previous year's figure of 25.

Councillor Brian Coleman, Barnet's London Assembly Member, said: "These figures not only suggest a more widespread use of guns, but that they are becoming more and more readily available.

"With the ever increasing amount of council tax that we're beingasked to pay, and the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone's much vaunted Safer Neighbourhoods scheme, with its supposedly more visible police presence, the residents of Barnet would expect to feel safe when venturing out onto the streets.

"However, these figures do nothing to support that view and castfurther doubt on the Mayor's ability to handle the policing of London effectively."

Chief Inspector Pete Edwards, of Barnet police, said: "We had a rise in gunpoint muggings last year, but that was after two years of falling robbery with a gun' figures.

"We take all robberies, especially gun enabled robberies, very seriously.

"There has been a significant reduction in robberies since April 1this year with about 100 fewer victims compared to the same period last year.

"We continue to make Barnet a safer place in which to live and work by targeting those who rob." -- Edgeware Times (UK)

July 6, 2006

Washington Times

A false safety

By John R. Lott, Jr.July 6, 2006 Washington Times

It seems simple enough to require that handguns sold in the United States have gun locks. Yet, last week the House of Representatives voted 230-191 to bar using federal funds to enforce the law that was passed only last year as part of a law to shield gun makers from reckless lawsuits. It is now up to the Senate. Touting locks as a way to reduce accidental gun deaths among children, Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign, a gun-control organization, immediately responded to the House vote by saying, "as a mother, this makes me ill." But despite the obvious feel-good appeal of these rules, gun locks and safe-storage laws are more likely to cost lives than to save them. Possibly the worst thing about mandating that handguns be sold with locks is that it exaggerates the risks of guns in the home and scares some people into not owning them. Accidental gun deaths among children are, fortunately, much rarer than most people believe. With 40 million children in the United States under the age of 10, there were just 20 accidental gun deaths in 2003, the latest year with data from the Centers for Disease Control. While guns get most of the attention, children are 41 times more likely to die from accidental suffocations, 32 times more likely to accidentally drown and 20 times more likely to die as a result of accidental fires. Looking at all children under 15, there were 56 accidental gun deaths in 2003-- still a fraction of the deaths resulting from these other accidents for only the younger children. Given that there are over 90 million adults in America who own at least one gun, the overwhelming majority of gun owners must have been extremely careful, even before the 2005 law, or the figures would be much higher. Despite the image of children firing these guns and killing themselves or other children, the typical person who accidentally fires a gun is an adult male, usually in his 20s. Accidental shooters overwhelmingly have problems with alcoholism and long criminal histories, particularly arrests for violent acts. They are also disproportionately involved in automobile crashes and are much more likely to have had their driver's licenses suspended or revoked. Even if gun locks could stop children from using guns, gun locks are simply not designed to stop adult males from firing their own guns -- even if they were to use the gun locks. Academic studies of safe-storage and gun-lock laws have also overwhelmingly found no evidence that they reduce the total number of suicides -- although a few studies have found some small reductions in suicides committed with guns. There are simply too many ways to commit suicide. If people are intent on killing themselves, they will still do it, with or without a gun. Yet, gun locks also pose real risks. Besides the costs that may deter poor people from buying guns, locked guns are also not as readily accessible for defensive gun uses. Since potentially armed victims deter criminals, storing a gun locked and unloaded may therefore increase crime. Exacerbating this problem are serious reliability issues. Even though the police are extremely important in reducing crime, they simply can't be there all the time and virtually always end up at the crime scene after the crime has been committed. Having a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a criminal. Even if one has young children, it does not make sense to lock up a gun if one lives in a high-crime urban area. Laws, or for that matter exaggerations of the risks involved in gun ownership, which make people lock up their guns or cause them not to own a gun in the first place will result in more deaths, not fewer deaths. Research that I have done examining juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides for all U.S. states from 1977 to 1998 found that safe-storage laws had no impact on either type of death. The families that obeyed the laws were the ones where there were essentially no accidental deaths occurring. What did happen, however, was that law-abiding citizens were less able to defend themselves against crime. The 16 states that adopted safe-storage laws during this period faced over 300 more murders and 4,000 more rapes per year. Burglaries also increased dramatically. Laws frequently have unintended consequences. Sometimes even the best intentioned ones cost lives.